Toby 2025-07-07 01:22 p.m.Ok, so one statute sets out the general rule that JAGC can represent a guardsman, but 403 says that you can only represent him at no cost if he can't afford civilian counsel, so I then asked you if you know that he can or can't afford civilian counsel, to which you said you didn't know. You never explicitly said that you're charging him, but your implied speech points towards you charging him. No statute allows you to represent him at cost as JAGC, and you're trying to use 402 and 404 as a loophole to represent him, whether or not that is with or without cost. You cited 404 saying guardsman are entitled to "... free representation by JAGC and provides the criteria for free representation." So since we've ruled out that you cannot represent him at cost, that leads us to 402 that tells us the criteria for which you can represent him at no cost, on the basis that he cannot afford civilian counsel, but you said you don't know if he can or can't afford civilian counsel, which means you've jumped the gun. 402 is the criteria in which you can represent him in criminal proceedings, nothing else trumps 402 in that regard. 404 only allows representation in civil proceedings. I have attached 404 below.